The court emphasized the principle that the High Court should not act as a second court of appeal and upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement for dereliction of duty in not promptly registering a case based on serious allegations made by a minor victim.

P.K. Misra, J.

Heard Mr. D. Peter Francis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Neelakantan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 12. 2004 where under the Original Application No.3701 of 2003 filed by the present petitioner before the State Administrative Tribunal has been dismissed. Such original application was filed for quashing an order of punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed after holding a departmental enquiry against the present petitioner. The substance of the allegation in the departmental proceeding was to the effect that even though a complaint was filed by a victim girl aged 15 years, no FIR was registered for a long period and only subsequently when a further complaint was filed by the same victim stating that she was being threatened by the alleged culprit and on the intervention of the superior officer, the complaint was registered by the present petitioner, who at that time was the Inspector of Police incharge of Othakkadai Police Station.

3. In the departmental proceeding, the plea of the present petitioner was to the effect that the complaint was given to the Sub-Inspector of Police by the victim girl, and such complaint was never brought to the notice of the present petitioner and as soon as it was brought to his notice on 17.05.2001, the complaint was registered as P.R.No.117/01 wherein by combining both the allegations namely, commission of offence under Section 376 IPC and a subsequent threat, a FIR was registered for offences under Sections 376 and 506(ii) IPC. In the departmental enquiry, two witnesses were examined namely, Mr.Ganesaperumal, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Mr.Vijaykumar, who was the subsequent Inspector of Othakadai Police Station. The Enquiry Officer concluded that there was dereliction of duty, inasmuch as prompt steps were not taken by the present petitioner to register the FIR. Certain other documents including the recommendation of the Assistant Director of Prosecution that appropriate action should be taken against the officers concerned was also marked as Ex.P-4. On the basis of the enquiry report, after giving further opportunity as required, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. The appeal filed having been dismissed, the petitioner filed the original application which also came to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in fact there is no evidence on record to indicate that the complaint which was filed before the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police was in fact brought to the notice of the present petitioner at any date prior to the actual date of registration of such FIR. The Tribunal while considering a similar contention had referred to the fact that in the departmental enquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted the preliminary enquiry, and the succeeding Inspector, who were examined as P.Ws 1 and 2, had stated that on the complaint itself there was an endorsement made by the Sub-Inspector that the matter had been placed before the concerned Inspector. Apart from this contemporaneous material, the fact remains that the present petitioner was the officer incharge of the police station and it can never be accepted that for a period of about one month he had no occasion to visit the police station and to go through the documents, which were available in the police station. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has succinctly observed:-

“But the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted the initial enquiry was examined as P.W.1. The Inspector who succeeded the applicant was examined as P.W.2. Both of them have spoken to the fact that in P.R.No.117/01 the Sub-Inspector has not only acknowledged the receipt of the complaint given by said Sindhu but also made an endorsement that it is placed before the Inspector of Police, Othakkadai for necessary action. The a